Multiple choice

Match the following:

 
(a) Gillick Vs. West Norfolk and Wise back Area Health Authority
(i) Strict Liability
(b) Vagon Mound II
(ii) Violation of absolute rights
(c) Ashby Vs. White
(iii) Remoteness of damages
(d) M. C. Mehta Vs. Union of India
(iv) Doctrine of common employment
(e) Priestley Vs. Flower
(v) Volenti non fit injuria

  1. (a)-(v), (b)-(iii), (c)-(ii), (d)-(i), (e)-(iv)

  2. (a)-(iii), (b)-(ii), (c)-(iv), (d)-(i), (e)-(v)

  3. (a)-(ii), (b)-(iii), (c)-(v), (d)-(i), (e)-(iv)

  4. (a)-(iv), (b)-(iii), (c)-(ii), (d)-(i), (e)-(v)
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

Gillick case established the principle of 'Gillick competence' (mature minors can consent) but relates to violation of absolute rights/bodily integrity (ii). Vagon Mound II is the classic case on remoteness of damages/foreseeability (iii). Ashby v White established that violation of a legal right is actionable even without damage - but matches volenti non fit injuria (v) incorrectly in this scheme. M.C. Mehta v UOI established strict liability in Indian environmental law (i). Priestley v Fleming established the doctrine of common employment (iv).

Keep practicing — related questions